November 29, 2012

I say we're being played by a political maneuver designed to keep us from looking deeply and broadly into the issues surrounding the Benghazi attack. It's all about Susan Rice, but why? She isn't even the nominee for Secretary of State. She just might be. Focus on her. She was sent out onto 5 Sunday talk shows a few days after the attack, to say something about that terrible video, which is itself a contrivance, a distraction. So make it about the video and embody that in a specific person, whom we never noticed before. And let's yammer about her for weeks and months until we're tired of talking about her, and then — who knows? — John Kerry is the real choice for Secretary of State. Rice was always expendable. She was the capsule into which the Benghazi scandal was enclosed for burial. Once we're tired of Rice — she's been battered and beaten and those who've done the beating have been accused of black-woman-battering — we'll automatically already be tired of talking about the Benghazi scandal, which never even broke!

Never assume genius where corruption, arrogance and stupidity will do. First, by all accounts Rice is a generally nasty piece of work. The woman who is known to scream and berate her subordinates and once gave a senior official the finger in a meeting is not likely to go gently into that good night. She wants to be Secretary of State and was no doubt promised the job. And with an administration as corrupt as this one, who knows what kind of dirt Rice has on Obama. Obama may not have a choice but to nominate Rice.

Second, the political risks are overrated. Obama knows or certainly thinks he has a personality cult. It is not like his followers are going to ever turn on him no matter what he does. As far as those Dem senators who are up for re-election in 2014, too bad. That is not Obama's problem. He has the entire national media who will say exactly what he tells them to say and millions of followers who will support him no matter what he does or had bad Rice makes him look.

When you consider those two factors, it is pretty obvious what is going to happen. Obama will nominate Rice. She will perjurer herself and make an utter fool of herself and the administration during her confirmation hearings. And she will be confirmed on a straight party line vote hurting the political prospects of every Senator from an even purple state who voted for her and Obama won't care. Not his problem.

He has the entire national media who will say exactly what he tells them to say and millions of followers who will support him no matter what he does or had bad Rice makes him look.

And along comes garage to prove my point about his followers. There must be some kind of odd sense of security that comes with giving up your dignity and freedom of thought for the cause. It certainly appeals to a lot of people.

Rice is a smoke screen. The only question that needs to be asked is - did Barry give a cross-border order in order to save almost 40 American citizens that night or not. If not why, not? (Hint - there was a false meme out there that Al Qaeda was on the run.) All else is silliness and egos.

I think you're overreading it slightly. The WH isn't trying to avoid Benghazi, the better way to do that is to simply not discuss Rice. Then there's no current event hook without which 95% of the stories disappear and the rest are ignored a la Fast & Furious.

The WH wants this spectacle. They believe their claim that those seeking answers are "playing politics" resonates. They're using this as step one in their "Republicans are just out to get Obama and BTW that's also why they aren't agreeing to Obama's sequestration resolution" narrative.

The truth is they just don't see Benghazi as a big deal. People died, so what? Bumps in the road are distractions from their mission of developing a bureacracy large enough it's effectively a full employment program.

did Barry give a cross-border order in order to save almost 40 American citizens that night or not. If not why, not?

I think he froze up and didn't know what to do. So he did nothing. But again, when you have millions of creatures like garage supporting you, you can afford to screw up.

Do you think liberals care that those people died? Of course not. Even if all of the rumors are true, that there was an illegal CIA prison there, that the ambassador was in Bengazi buying arms to be sent illegally to Syria and so forth, it will not matter.

I honestly don't know why Obama bothers to even pretend any of this does. It would be a lot easier if he would just tell the truth followed by "fuck you that is why" and move on. It is not like it would hurt his standing with his cult.

This Benghazi thing will not go away because Republicans sense the public is still very interested at getting to the bottom of why they were lied to.

It's really not about - with 4600 dead soldier and 45,000 casualties - a massive public concern about how to make it all perfectly safe so we don't ever have 4 DEAD HEROES!!! - again or how to rescue and save any American under Islamoid attack.

The public is interested in the mystery behind Benghazi. Who knew what and when. Who lied and why they lied about the 1st successful large terror attack against Americans since the first 9/11.

There must be some kind of odd sense of security that comes with giving up your dignity and freedom of thought for the cause

You just aren't nearly smart as you think you are. Ask yourself: why is McCain going after someone who had nothing to do with the security at Benghazi? Why not go after the state dept, or the CIA, who was? McCain said before the election Scott Brown was the one he wanted in the senate the most.

That, and McCain still probably chaffed he got smoked by Obama and wasn't the one given the opportunity to kill bin Laden. [my only personal opinion].

When looking at any political situation or scandal I always start from the assumption that people are idiots, because we are. This is especially true of this administration. They're a bunch of arrogant, beggarly fools. Any one of them would stab another in the back without hesitation if they believed it would help their political prospects. And with a compliant media protecting them the corruption will spread like wildfire over the next 4 years.

And let's yammer about her for weeks and months until we're tired of talking about her, and then — who knows? — John Kerry is the real choice for Secretary of State. Rice was always expendable.

Yeah, I have to wonder whether Republicans have really thought this through. Given the choice between a liar and a fool, isn't the liar generally going to be the better choice for Secretary of State? Isn't that what diplomats are supposed to do? Do Republicans really think Kerry would do a better job than Rice? Because if he comes up for nomination it's pretty unlikely his chums in the Senate will vote him down.

It is always a useful exercise, as one browses NYT, listens to NPR or gets tricked into getting onto PuffHo, to ask yourself this question: "What are they NOT talking about?"

I was amazed, for instance, in the week last spring that Ryan introduced his game-changing budget proposals, Huffington Post took great care to have big headlines and dramatic art that would yammer about ANYTHING else, and only way way down scrolling was there a tiny item with a pic of Ryan and a caption that was trivial, unrelated and jabberwocky. Fascinating journOlism.

Maybe so. But one thing is for sure, you are a lot further gone than even I thought you were. I would think your cult leaders gave you better talking points. Scott Brown? WTF? That is stupid and nonsensical even for a sock puppet.

Didn't I just call y'all dupes a couple days ago for focusing on Susan Rice's talking points? Why yes, yes I did. You are being played, now you need to figure out who is playing you and why, hint Senate seat as Garage pointed out.

Another hint, sour grapes.

In the meantime, why were we still in Bengahzi after the Brits left? That answer is on the Obama administration. In this regard, we all may be being played.

Is being a dupe a big deal? I'm curious because you repeated falsehoods that Romney took a 77k tax credit for his horse and there are tax deductions for offshoring workers. Were you a dupe for repeating those falsehoods? Or were you a liar?

Obama refuses to answer valid questions that he already has the answer to. He tells Sen. Ayotte to come after him, but then is unwilling to do so. (cowardice? or concerned about having to tell new lies to cover old ones?)

When you investigate, you start with what you already have.

We already know that Susan Rice went to an extremely large number of shows to push a description/explanation on behalf of the White House.

We already know beyond a doubt that the description/explanation she delivered was not supported by the intelligence that was known at the time.

We already know that the US Ambassador to the UN would not be anywhere in the top 10 list of people most appropriate to be a spokesperson for a topic like Benghazi (the most appropriate being a top official from State, ODNI, or DoD at worst).

So you ask her questions, getting her answers on record. Then you go to the CIA, DoD, etc, and ask similar questions, and take note of inconsistencies.

Blaming mistakes on bad intelligence is the oldest dodge in the book. It's like saying "the check is in the mail" or "the dog ate my homework".

In fact, that's how we know that her talking points were not based on the best intelligence at the time. We know that Intelligence knew it was an organized assault by a terrorist organization and not anything to do with a YouTube video at all while the attack was still going on.

So you keep pressing Rice because her story will break down. She cannot continue to repeat lies without destroying her personal reputation and her personal future. If she tries to (perhaps guaranteed of a career-/reputation- restoring post after?), then you can eventually get around to legal charges of perjury or misuse of federal position to spread lies.

That gives you the leverage to force testimony from people closer to the one who actually made the decision to go with the bald-faced lie.

Even when they prefer to visit friends in Australia instead of testifying or are forced out due to a "scandal" the White House has been sitting on for at least 6 months, but deployed scant days before testifying under oath.

No conspiracy: we know the White House decided to lie to the US people about the Benghazi attack.

But it has to be proven, and it has to be done in such a way that the person responsible is held to accountability. We must prevent some flunky being scapegoated.

I agree Colonel, why were we in Libya? Especially after the Brits left.

Obama stated he didn't believe in dumb wars and then proceeded in getting us into a pretty dumb one. Yet, his followers ignored it, as they did the follow up, or lack thereof and suddenly Big Bird and birth control took center stage.

We should be demanding to know why we engaged in regime change in a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us. But then again that's rhetorical since liberals play by a different rulebook.

Perhaps a lesson we will learn from this is not to involve ourselves in other nations civil wars and revolutions. And not to start wars in countries like Iraq, who were no direct threat to us. And not staying in wars that should've long been over, like Afghanistan.

If the Al Qaeda attack on American citizens in American territory in Bengahzi was being watched in real time for seven hours...where was Obama? Now I ask you, why don't the brilliant and tenacious investigative reporters in the MSM ask that kindergarten question? Who is naive enough to believe we any longer live in a remotely free country?

X said...Inga, no one was more duped than you on Benghazi. you thought it was a protest over a disgusting and amateurish video and maintained that position longer than Susan Rice.=====================In fairness to Inga - she is more correct that the events of 9/11/2012 had more to do with the video re: attacks on Americans that day than conservatives that suddenly forgot all about the 11 other violent protests at or in US embassies. That, including pillaged embassies, looting, burned property - and several thousand Americans in fear of their lives - was directly the result of radical leaders using the video to stir up angry and vengeful mobs eager to pay America back for the Blasphemy.

Even at Benghazi, the blasphemy video was used to motivate and anger the jihadi combatants before the planned attack started. All later interviewed said the video was part of the info leaders gave them beforehand. Some even watched footage on the leaders cell phones.

We do the same thing with our guys going into combat. Have since the Revolutionary War. If the enemy is stupid enough to give us ammunition - it is used in our propaganda.

Inga said...McCain continues to push for US involvement in Syria. Is that dumb too? What was Romney's stance on our involvement on Syria?

===============Romney thought we should arm the non-radical Islamist part of the opposition, but go no further than that. He is not as war-thirsty as McCain is.

Nor is the general public.

Or most Republicans, who are not aligned with the neocons or Fundie war hawks within the Party, for the most part. They are as sick as the rest of the public of trillions squandered in eternal wars of nation-building, adventure, and supposedly giving the noble people trying to kill Occupying US soldiers - Freedom@! Democracy! and "Arab springs" at gunpoint!

Inga, as for Libya, Obama engaged in regime change as did Bush. But for all of the caterwauling from the left about invading a country that posed no threat, Obama got a pass.

So in essence, liberal Democrats really don't care about military intervention when they do it. The electorate evidently cared more about abortion, birth control and vaginas than foreign intervention or impending economic collapse.

Oblahblah is also being spared the need to make a statement about the emerging Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship in Egypt and Palestinean statehood both of which demonstrate either the amateurism of his foreign policy or his commitment to Islamist goals regarding Israel.

As usual, the lefty sociopaths who infest this blog are either: changing the subject, denying, or attacking Althouse and her commenters.

You mean your icon isn't your headshot? Could have sworn you were a founding member of Wild Stallions.

You already let us know your height and weight tubby, I'm happy to share mine. 6'0 185. And self admittedly could stand to lose about 10-15 pounds to get back to my svelte swimmer days, but far from the officially obese status you enjoy. Michelle Obama said so.

Nice to see that Althouses most prolifically posting overweight couple (Garage and Inga) have come to spike yet another thread.

Then again I guess it is not yet lunchtime in the midwest so they have some time to type before stuffing their fat faces.

I see we have a new competitor to replace Jay, the missing bottomfeeder. Try adding "Idiot" to the end of your comments. And although Jay would actually (mis)argue a position, don't feel bad if you aren't able to actually do that. Your grade-school "fatty" attacks make you a strong frontrunner.

The same thing happened in Egypt, albeit through different channels. However, what happened in Libya is happening (i.e. regime change) in Syria; and, it seems the the spoils of war in Libya are feeding the "revolution" in the latter. The actions in both Libya and Syria are following the Afghanistan model, where we aided domestic interests to seize power.

As for Benghazi, the cover-up is tremendous. It reminds me of, among other things, the "Fast and Furious" charade which the administration performed in our own nation. An action which resulted in the recorded death of one American and hundreds of Mexicans.

In the meantime, the administration is purchasing support from a majority of voters. Is this the model followed by other administrations? I don't recall such overt efforts to bribe and corrupt the population previously.

In fairness to Inga - she is more correct that the events of 9/11/2012 had more to do with the video re: attacks on Americans that day than conservatives that suddenly forgot all about the 11 other violent protests at or in US embassies. That, including pillaged embassies, looting, burned property - and several thousand Americans in fear of their lives - was directly the result of radical leaders using the video to stir up angry and vengeful mobs eager to pay America back for the Blasphemy.

But was the video actually the cause? It was just a helpful prop to radical leaders trying to get a bit of rabble rousing going. Not like the video was posted and the very next day our embassies were burning -- they were uploaded in July. Even if that particular video hadn't been uploaded, I'm sure there's hundreds of other instances of anti-Muslim material that's been posted to the internet in 2012 any of which would have served just fine. This particular video just turned into the Gangnam Style of anti-Mahometan videos.

The video was posted on the Saturday before Tuesday 9/11, on Egyptian TV WITH translation. On Tuesday 11 embassies were attacked, in retaliation for the video, within days of 9/11 22 embassies had protests against the video.

The video was posted on the Saturday before Tuesday 9/11, on Egyptian TV WITH translation. On Tuesday 11 embassies were attacked, in retaliation for the video, within days of 9/11 22 embassies had protests against the video.

So 3 days after the video hit the big time. But is there anything about that particular video that would make it more inflammatory than the hundreds -- thousands? -- of anti-Muslim videos and other materials that get posted every year in the US. Any of them (well, beyond a certain level of polish) would have sufficed for the purposes of the rabble-rousers involved.

It's like saying that a crime committed with a particular gun was "caused" by that specific gun when in fact, even if that gun had been destroyed, there were 100 other guns close to hand, and if guns were unavailing, a knife or nail-studded baseball bat would have done in a pinch.

Didn't I just call y'all dupes a couple days ago for focusing on Susan Rice's talking points? Why yes, yes I did. You are being played, now you need to figure out who is playing you and why, hint Senate seat as Garage pointed out.

Another hint, sour grapes.

In the meantime, why were we still in Bengahzi after the Brits left? That answer is on the Obama administration. In this regard, we all may be being played.

Why do you care now? You got the answers from the investigation you wanted right? Either you got the answer you were looking for or you accept the outcome of the investigation. So there really is nothing more for you to say on the matter. bye now.

I have never posted under any handle other than this, but if in your fevered leftist brain it makes you feel better to equate me with another boogeyman from the internet, by all means.

Also, Garage, that did not sound like a denial of the 220 number. Scale don't lie.

And unlike you and the majority of the democratic voting coalition, I actually have to get back to work to generate the exorbiant tax dollars to support the health care the will inevitably have to pay for your weight related ills. Eat up.

I have never posted under any handle other than this, but if in your fevered leftist brain it makes you feel better to equate me with another boogeyman from the internet, by all means.

Also, Garage, that did not sound like a denial of the 220 number. Scale don't lie.

And unlike you and the majority of the democratic voting coalition, I actually have to get back to work to generate the exorbiant tax dollars to support the health care the will inevitably have to pay for your weight related ills. Eat up.

Balfegor, only that it was featured on Egytian TV with translation, three days before the attack. Who knows, it may have been part of some diversionary tactic to allow attacks on embassies. Why hey chose to attack on 9/11, well that's very symbolic, I'd say.

1. Heard that Gitmo is closed to new prisoners. Secret CIA prison in Benghazi, Broadwell mentioned, does make sense.

2. Heard that new, deadlier weapons are now showing up in the hands of Syrian rebels. Could the Ambassador in Benghazi have in fact been facilitating transfer of heavy weapons to Syrian rebels?

Then, a third thought on the matter:

3. Finally, why blame the video? Dont you think it is too simple to think that, to protect his re-election chances , Obama wanted to blame video so no one would know that al quaeda was still a threat?

3a. Why did both Obama and Clinton insist on using, while condemning the video, the phrase "that we had nothing to do with?" No one was accusing them. No one would automatically think, hmm, bet Clinton and Obama collaborated on producing that little gem. If I had won Powerball, I'd have put a big bet on there being much, much more to the video and the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, than first meets the eye.

Inga said: You are being played, now you need to figure out who is playing you and why, hint Senate seat as Garage pointed out.

Maybe not. It is Massachusetts we're talking about, after all.

When Romney was governor, the Democratic-controlled legislature changed the law to fill vacant seats. It had been that the governor would appoint someone to fill out the remainder of a term. But since a Republican was governor, the Democrats passed a new law requiring a special election be held after a position becomes vacant.

But then Ted Kennedy died, and the Democratic governor was stuck with that new law, and look what happened. So now there's talk of going back to the old law.

Balfegor, only that it was featured on Egytian TV with translation, three days before the attack. Who knows, it may have been part of some diversionary tactic to allow attacks on embassies.

That's not my point -- Any other video would have done. Some news host (evidently named Sheikh Khalad Abdalla) picked it to air on TV to inflame public opinion. It was just a tool.

That said, as I look into it, it seems like rather than spreading organically amongst Islamic radicals keen to stir up hatred of the US, there was a Coptic activist (Morris Sadek) who decided to use the video to try and provoke a reaction in Egypt by sending it to hundreds of people including many journalists. So maybe it wasn't so much a tool being used by Islamist preachers to stir up anti-American hatred, as a tool being used by an Egyptian-American activist to . . . do something? Make Muslims look like idiots? Not sure what his plan was there.

If the video "caused" a great deal of violence and need cost lives, then that would add support to the OIC - Organization of Islamic Cooperation . The OIC has a complex piece if "legislation" or a resolution before the UN, right now. As I understand it, within the depths of turgidity of the proposal, lies wording that will make it a crime to criticism Islam, thereby abrogating or eroding Americans' right to Freedom of Speech on the issue of Islam.

That makes the video actually pretty useful, more than a simple diversion.

I tend to disagree with the article. Like putting Rice at the UN and placing Samantha Power as a natioal security advisor(?), Obama likes who he likes. I think he really wants Rice at State, and they don't give a hang if the GOP goes bonkers over Benghazi, because in the end, it's a dead end.

PPS If I'm so far out there, why are the little weasel and Diamond wasting so much time denouncing me?

Great point. I never ever make fun of internet lunatics and their crazy opinions.

The obvious explanation for my mocking of edutcher is that I don't want the rest of humanity to see the compelling logic behind his conspiracy theories. So every time I criticize his nuttiness, I'm actually proving that he's right.

X, did you choose to ignore how Cedarford corrected you on your faulty logic? Instead, as usual, you focus on what I have said, even if it is similar to what Cedarford has said, because you are scared shitless to get into it with Cedarford, interesting and revealing.

I think it's amusing how some of you here are scared to confront Cedarford.

Nope Nathan, Cedarford makes some very cogent observations and if you wouldn't have such a closed mind you would see it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thin he says, but to dismiss everything he says is missing out on possibly good info.

She was the capsule into which the Benghazi scandal was enclosed for burial.

I hope that Issa and others won't it be buried along with Rice's career. Having Rice go out on national TV to push the administration's phony story about Benghazi being spontaneous was only one screw-up among many screw-ups. If Congress doesn't find out what happened and why then how can we the public have any confidence it won't happen again?

PPS If I'm so far out there, why are the little weasel and Diamond wasting so much time denouncing me?

Great point. I never ever make fun of internet lunatics and their crazy opinions.

Yet here he is.

Riddle me that one, Batbroad.

The obvious explanation for my mocking of edutcher is that I don't want the rest of humanity to see the compelling logic behind his conspiracy theories. So every time I criticize his nuttiness, I'm actually proving that he's right.

Blah, blah.

In other words, all those vote fraud stories are not only not going away, they're gaining traction at places like Insta.

It's also funny she whines that others "run away" from Cedarford, as if understanding why it's the jews fault is in any way enlightening. It just shows she's willing keep any company as long as it furthers the immediate attack.

you want to paint me as an antisemite for agreeing with Cedarford on some subjects.

I don't think you're an anti-semite for agreeing with C4 on some subjects. but you do believe in White Guilt as demonstrated by your many comments about white men and there are logical extensions to that. your ridiculous rules, not mine. let me guess, you give yourself a pass for some reason. couldn't you allow yourself to be as generous to others?

Note also that fair Inga still has not answered whether she's a dupe for repeating anti-Romney falsehoods or if she's a liar for knowing repeating them. No doubt she believes remembering her idiocies is "unfair".

Even Benghazi was part influenced by the video. Yes, the attack would have gone forward without the blasphemy video - but maybe with less people, with the attackers less stoked up to kill Americans.

But did it have to be that video? That's just the one they happened to use to rev up the crowd. I think attributing too much significance to the particular video used is a huge mistake and kind of silly. They could have used cartoon depictions of Mohammed after all, and that would probably have worked about as well. Blasphemy occurs all the time in the United States, so there's no want of offensive material to choose from.

Perhaps a lesson we will learn from this is not to involve ourselves in other nations civil wars and revolutions. And not to start wars in countries like Iraq, who were no direct threat to us. And not staying in wars that should've long been over, like Afghanistan.

What is so disturbing about this statement is the mindset behind it, one characterized by invincible ignorance.

As if no such thing as a power vacuum has ever existed in world history. Or what has happened when one is waiting to be filled.

X said...I've called C4 on his jew scapegoating. that's more than you have ever done. he replied the other day to explain he hates all the other minorities too.

================The rest of the world has moved past the idea of immunity of jews against all criticism of jewish actions and Israel's - because they suffered in a war.

Only in America is any criticism of them still considered by many as proof of bigotry.

Others have tried playing the Jewish card. With less success. Blacks came the closest - but less and less people buy the race card being played to stifle any criticism of black pathologies. Gays have a recent success track - but consider it a temporary thing because they will soon spread a new disease far and wide by butt fucking one another or there will be another huge pederasty scandal that they have less success deflecting than the superb PR job they did recasting gay priests as non-gay "pedophiles".

Muslims and "Islamophobia"? Not even close to the Jewish immunity amulet in the USA. And criticism of China as racist? Forget it.

Plus Willard being on the wrong side of the auto bailout issue = a relative easy win for Obama in Ohio~Ohio~Ohio.

Again, Obama’s ground game is state of the art and has been up and runnin’ on all cylinders for (6) years, whereas alas, Willard’s Ohio ground game resembles Woody Hayes three yards and a cloud of dust! :D

My insistence that the election was stolen must be unbearable, so frail his delicate ego that, in this small matter, he might have been actually been right for a change.

Or I may just be right and may convince others. I can see where that would bother him.

But pleading to the bloggress to intercede on your behalf and make me stop opposing you (it must be distressing to see you cannot win here) will avail you naught. Madame believes in free speech, so you'll have to prevail on your own - which, of course, you have utterly failed to do.

So, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Giving Little Zero the benefit of your political savvy that this Benghazi thing would just blow over?

Yeah, well, maybe. "Genius" isn't a trait I generally ascribe to this crowd.

So, did Rice know she was being set up as a diversion? Did Clapper change the intelligence "talking points" in order to dupe her and reel her in? Did she ask why they were sending her, of all people, out (after, as we've been assured, she had nothing to do with Benghazi)? Why not someone from the WH or State or Defense or Intelligence?

She's wanted SecState since she first hooked up with Madeleine Albright. I don't see her willingly putting all that in jeopardy just to ride point in Obama's dog and pony show. What was she promised? What was she told? Inquiring minds want to know.

Most important, of course, is what the heck was going on in Benghazi. We hear CIA operation posing as consulate; we hear detention center; we hear gun running. How about we finally hear some cold hard facts. The administration is sadly mistaken if they think we're going to let this go. They can distract us all they want. We're quite capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time.

Susan Rice is the Ollie North of our time - only not as depraved and crooked. But she can be used like Ollie to be thrown under said bus so that people stop talking about more important events [or scandals, if you will]. Nothing new here people.

Regarding vote fraud and the election, I think there was some vote fraud -- there's enough to raise a strong suspicion -- but I don't think it determined the election. Obama's margin was beyond stealing distance. His partisans may just have been afraid it was going to be closer than it ultimately was. Sort of like Nixon in 1972.

If you feel that way, OK by me, but I see it not unlike the WMDs in Iraq.

When a set of conditions is so widely accepted and later we're told that they never existed, that strains credulity way too much and, like the WMDs and so much else the Lefties want us to swallow with only their say-so, I'm more than open to the possibility that those conditions were true and what the Lefties want us to believe is a lot of hokum.

I respect your opinion and wouldn't dream of giving you a hard time about it, but I'm just going to remain skeptical for a while.